Jonas and I were having an offline discussing regarding the synchronous
Indexed Database API and noting how clean and straightforward it will allow
Worker scripts to be. One general Worker issue we noted - independent of
IDB - was that there are cases where Worker scripts may need to fetch data
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
Jonas and I were having an offline discussing regarding the synchronous
Indexed Database API and noting how clean and straightforward it will allow
Worker scripts to be. One general Worker issue we noted - independent of
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
This is counter to the whole premise of Workers, which should be
independent of their renderer process and certainly not block themselves
while waiting for responses from the renderer (which inherently describes
an
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
We discussed a very similar thing about a year ago; I've been meaning to
bring that up again, so this is probably as good a time as any.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/1075.html
Ah, thanks -
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
^^^ Nit: That would revert back to being postMessage(), no new API on the
Worker side.
Right, I just copied your example. (You mean no new API for sending
messages--the get the next event method would be new API for
It seems like this mechanism would deadlock a worker if two workers send
each other a synchronous message.
dave
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
Jonas and I were having an offline discussing regarding the synchronous
Indexed Database API and noting how
On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
This is counter to the whole premise of Workers, which should be independent
of their renderer process and certainly not block themselves while
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
No, it's not. Messaging should not block either process.
No, it's perfectly fine to block a worker, as long as the worker explicitly
requests it and is expecting it.
I don't know what that means. Synchronous APIs are
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
No, it's not. Messaging should not block either process.
No, it's perfectly fine to block a worker, as long as the worker
explicitly requests it
Currently, Web Workers provides a heavy scope for multithreaded Web Apps to
handle heavy data processing.
I'd like to draw on those specs and create a new lightweight scope useful for
various data processing tasks typically associated with stream processing and
GPUs.
CSS/FX is looking at
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
It seems like this mechanism would deadlock a worker if two workers send
each other a synchronous message.
Indeed. We can only allow child workers to block on parent workers.
Never the other way around.
I think in theory it
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
**
Does anybody use registerProtocolHandler in any real sense? Is
registerContentHandler needed? It seems like Web Intents is an evolution on
the concept. I don't think we're going to see convergence on those old
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
It seems like this mechanism would deadlock a worker if two workers send
each other a synchronous message.
Indeed. We can only allow child workers
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:05 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
It seems like this mechanism would deadlock a worker if two workers send
On Nov 17, 2011, at 6:41 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:05 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
It
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
It seems like this mechanism would deadlock a worker if two workers send
each other a synchronous message.
Indeed. We can only allow child workers
On 11/17/2011 4:52 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
Currently, Web Workers provides a heavy scope for multithreaded Web Apps to
handle heavy data processing.
I'd like to draw on those specs and create a new lightweight scope useful for
various data processing tasks typically associated with
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:05 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org
wrote:
18 matches
Mail list logo
